USPTO Patents Application 10611682

licaht(s):
Serial No.:
Filed:

For:

Examiner:
Art Unit:

Confirmation No.
Customer No.:

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE EXAMINER r ^
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS

Falla et al.

10/611,682
July 1, 2003

METHODS OF MAKING COTTON BLEND GLUE
BRASSIERES

Gloria Hale

3765

5335

7

27673

Attorney Docket: PL083USQ

Mail Stop Appeal Brief-Patents
COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

We are enclosing for filing in the above-identified application the following:

1 . Appellant's Reply Brief (in triplicate);

2. Transmittal letter in duplicate; and

3. Postcard.

Please charge any additional fees or credit any such fees, if necessary to Deposit Account
No. 01-0467 in the name of Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle. A duplicate copy of this sheet is
attached.

September 24. 2007

Date Charles N.J. Ruggiero

Registration No. 29,468
Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P.
One Landmark Square, 10th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901-2682
Telephone: (203) 327-4500
Telefax: (203)327-6401

CERTIFICATE OF EXPRESS MAILING
I hereby certify that this paper or fee is being deposited with the Unjteff'STltes Postal Serv^e "Express Mail Post Office to
Addressee" Certificate No. EM104472034US, service under 37 QrR §1.10 aWis addjsgr^ed to: Mail Stop Appeal Brief-
Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria^ VA 22313/W50/JfTa^ptember 24, 2007.

Hector Lopez

(T yped name of person mailing paper)

Filed:
Examiner:
Art Unit:

Confirmation No.
Customer No.:

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Falla et al.
10/611,682

METHODS OF MAKING COTTON BLEND GLUE
BRASSIERES

July 1,2003

Gloria Hale

3765

5335

27,623

Attorney Docket No.

PL083USQ

Mail Stop Appeal Brief-Patents
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPLY BRIEF FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. S134

Dear Sir:

In response to the Examiner's Answer dated July 24, 2007, Appellants file
herewith a Reply Brief under 35 U.S.C. §134 and 37 C.F.R. §41.41.

Independent claims 1, 14, and 19 are all directed to methods of forming an
undergarment , where each claim recites, in part, that the "subassembly" or "stretchable
laminate" has "a periphery that is larger than an entire outer periphery of the
undergarment".

The Examiner's Answer asserts that "the garment of Gluckin is an undergarment
whether it is a full, half, or partial undergarment as broadly claimed since an

Serial No. 10/611,682
Art Unit 3765

undergarment is a garment that is worn under another outer garment". See page 7,
lines 18-20.

Thus, the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 19 appears to be based on the assertion
that hajf an undergarment or a partial undergarment is the same as an undergarment.

Appellants respectfully submit that this assertion is simply not reasonable.

During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given *>their< broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). However, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those
skilled in the art would reach (emphasis added). In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359,
49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Appellants respectfully submit that the interpretation of the "an undergarment" to
be anticipated by a half or partial undergarment is simply not a reasonable interpretation
of this element and is not consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art
would reach.

The claims are not directed to a method of forming hajf of an undergarment.
Further, the claims are not directed to a method of forming part of an undergarment.
Rather, the claims are directed to a method of forming an undergarment.

Further, the Examiner's Answer asserts that the claimed "an entire outer
periphery of the undergarment" is interpreted as "any outer periphery on the Gluckin
brassiere". See page 8, lines 5-6.

Appellants respectfully submit that this assertion is also simply not reasonable.

Page 2 of 3

Serial No. 10/611,682
Art Unit 3765

Again' the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be
consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach (emphasis
added). Id.

Appellants respectfully submit that the interpretation of the "an entire outer
periphery of the undergarment" to be anticipated by any outer periphery of the Gluckin
brassiere is simply not a reasonable interpretation of this element and is not consistent
with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.

In view of the above, Appellants submit that the half or partial undergarment of
Gluckin does not expressly or inherently describe the identical invention in as complete
detail as is recited by claims 1, 14, and 19.

In summary, Appellants respectfully request that the Board of Appeals reverse the
final rejections of claims 1 through 23, thereby enabling all of the pending claims to be
allowed.

Charles N. J. Ruggierow
Reg. No. 28,468
Attorney for Appellant(s)
Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P.
One Landmark Square, 10 th floor
Stamford, CT 06901-2682
Tel: (203) 327-4500
Fax: (203) 327-6401

Page 3 of 3